Collaborating for Student Success: An E-mail Survey of U.S. Libraries and Writing Centers

: A FTER RE - STARTING A COLLABORATIVE PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE LIBRARY AND WRITING CENTER AT W RIGHT S TATE U NIVERSITY , THE LIBRARIANS AND WRITING CENTER STAFF INVOLVED WANTED TO COMPARE DATA WITH OTHER EXISTING COLLABORATIONS . W ITH A LIMITED AMOUNT OF DATA AVAILABLE IN CURRENT LITERATURE , THEY CONDUCTED AN E - MAIL SURVEY OF LIBRARIANS , WRITING CENTER STAFF , AND WRITING TUTORING SERVICES STAFF FROM ACROSS THE COUNTRY . T HIS SURVEY FOUND THAT THE MAJORITY OF PARTICIPANTS HAD A WRITING CENTER ON CAMPUS AND THAT AROUND TWO - THIRDS OF RESPONDENTS HAD AN EXISTING PARTNERSHIP . T HE SCOPE OF THESE COLLABORATIONS VARIED AND MANY COMMENTED ON A NEED FOR MORE COMMUNICATION , PLANNING , AND A SHARED SPACE . M OVING FORWARD , MANY EXISTING AND FUTURE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN LIBRARIES AND WRITING CENTERS , OR WRITING TUTORING SERVICES , COULD BENEFIT FROM INCREASED STRATEGIC PLANNING , ASSESSMENT , TRAINING , AND REGULAR COMMUNICATION , WHETHER OR NOT THEY SHARE A SPACE .


Background
In 2015, Wright State University restarted its collaborative partnership with the University Writing Center. Prior to summer 2015, the University Writing Center had been located in the basement of the Paul Laurence Dunbar Library and the two groups worked together occasionally, but not regularly. Beginning in summer 2015, the University Writing Center moved to the newly constructed Student Success Center building, where services focused on the success of students (especially in their first year) were relocated. Seizing the opportunity, the two groups implemented embedded librarians in the Writing Center four days a week to assist with student's research needs as a part of the research and writing process. As the collaboration continued to develop and grow, the two groups researched other cases of collaborative library/writing center relationships and were not able to find specific numbers related to these relationships. This survey grew from the desire to see what other institutions are doing (or not doing) in terms of collaboration between writing tutoring service groups and libraries and how we might adapt our own relationship based on other institutions' experiences.

Literature Review
When it comes to scholarship on the collaborative potential of libraries and writing centers, it is important to not only consider what has been written regarding each separate group, or of the two together, but also the history surrounding the need for assistance with gathering and incorporating information. Andrew Richard Albanese noted that the Internet helped transform information from being seen as a noun to being seen as a verb -more of a process than simply existing (44). This correlates to what Barclay and Barclay wrote about English teachers leaving grammar-focused lessons for more writing-as-a-process based lessons in the 1960s, where steps were introduced to writing papers (213). Information and language have evolved to become procedural, almost trial-anderror based, as time has progressed. James K. Elmborg and Sheril Hook both describe writing and research as processes that are linked -without one, the other weakens. On the other hand, Montgomery and Robertshaw, as well as Palomino and Gouveia, believe that students are separating the research and writing processes, believing that they are different from one another and are not followed in any particular order as students complete their assignments. Janelle Zauha asserts that whether or not these two processes are seen as linked or separate depends on the proximity of services for each area. According to her research, separating centers like libraries and writing centers leads both staff and students to believe that each area should be focused on individually, with help available in separated spaces and not in one space, at the same time.
During the first half of the 20th century, writing centers began as a way for instructors to witness the progress of their students' writing as it was produced, and transitioned to being a place where writing occurred rather than a teaching strategy . Irene L. Clark observed that writing centers in the 21st century tend to become involved with students during later stages of the writing process (562). Collaboration between the library and writing center, with an emphasis on information literacy, can lead to both tutors and librarians becoming involved with students' writing throughout their writing processes, increasing the potential for student success (Clark). Collaborative relationships can take many forms, including workshops, tutorials, co-teaching, coconsultations, embedded tutors in the library, and embedded librarians in the writing center (James & Nowacek; Mahaffy). Davonna Thomas insists that these relationship should involve "sharing processes, resources, and best practices" (25). Along with these shared traits, collaborations should also include a focus on communication, teamwork, feedback, understanding of one another, documentation, and training, among other ideal traits (Brady et. al; Escobar & Gauder). Although there are many benefits to collaborative relationships, there are some challenges that both librarians and tutors face. Rachel Cooke and Carol Bledsoe identified five common challenges, including working with students at various points of the writing process, working around uncertainty regarding assignment directions, lack of time, encouraging the student to take ownership of their own learning, as well as identifying quality sources and integrating them properly into written works (120). Addressing and working through these challenges can lead to a stronger partnership between libraries and writing centers and increase the likelihood of student success for those utilizing the combined services.
A common practice in both writing centers and libraries, as well as collaborative partnerships between the two, is to employ peers to work with students. Kenneth Bruffee expresses that peer tutoring creates a "community" among the peer tutors and peer learners, leading to a deeper understanding of scholarship and conversations that can lead to discovery and comprehension of information relevant to the students' future career fields (211). Mary O'Kelly et. al build on this idea and state that working with peers leads to students "exploring, practicing, and questioning their understanding of issues and topics…untethered from…working with professional librarians and staff" (163). While working with staff and professionals has its own benefits, peer-to-peer work encourages deeper conversations as the two groups (tutors and tutees) are at roughly the same status and level of experience.
While existing scholarship covers many aspects of potential relationships between libraries and writing centers, there are not many pieces discussing the quantitative data associated with such partnerships. In her Master's paper, Lily Todorinova surveyed 154 librarians by phone, with a 90% response rate, regarding whether there is a writing center on their campus, if it is located within the library, and whether there is an existing collaboration or if not, if it would be useful in the future. This phone survey represents a small section of what my e-mail survey set out to discover -numbers of institutions with writing centers, where they're located, and can or would have a collaborative partnership between the library and writing center. Todorinova's survey shows a small sampling of small and large 4-year institutions from 2010, whereas my e-mail survey includes all Carnegie Higher Education size and setting classifications and encompasses not only librarians, but writing center and tutoring staff as well.

Methods
Participants were invited from a random sampling of 30% of each institutional "Size and Setting" group from the 2010 Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education (see Table A). Contact information for the library and writing center (or tutoring services area) on each campus were researched and schools were only contacted that had one or both groups' contact information available through their website. A total of 1,460 e-mail invitations to participate in the survey were sent out in March 2016, after Wright State Institutional Review Board approval. Surveys were sent using Qualtrics software, which anonymized responses and collected the data in one secure location. The survey was available for three weeks, with three reminders sent during that time.
The survey was designed to gather data from two diverse groups: those who had knowledge of an existing collaboration between the writing center and writing center/writing tutoring services area of their campus and those who did not believe that such a collaboration existed. Only those who identified as librarians, writing center staff, or tutoring services staff were eligible to participate in the survey and the number of questions they answered depended on their answer to the question "Are you aware of any existing collaboration between the library and writing center/writing tutoring services?" A complete list of the questions asked and responses gathered per group are available in Appendix A.

A. Demographics
117 librarians (59% of participants), 59 writing center staff (30%), and 21 tutoring services staff (11%) participated in this survey. Of those participants, 39% had 10 years or more of experience in their position, 9% had seven to nine years of experience, 25% had four to six years, 23% had one to three years, and 5% had less than one year of experience. 90% of participants are full-time employees (35 hours or more per week) and 10% are part-time employees (less than 35 hours per week).
Forty-three states, as well as the District of Columbia, were represented (see Appendix A), as well as seventeen of the eighteen size and setting groups from the 2010 Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education (see Table A).
94% of participants had a writing center located on their campus and 6% did not. Of those who had a writing center, 40% of those writing centers are a part of a collection of services (e.g., a Learning Commons or Academic Resource Center), 27% of the writing centers are located within a campus library, 22% are freestanding writing centers, 2% have two locations -one in the library and one in a collection of services, 4% have multiple locations on campus, 1% are located in another academic building, 1% are located within the English department, and 1% are virtual writing centers. 65% of participants are aware of an existing collaboration between the library and the writing center and 35% do not believe that there is an existing collaboration.

B. Questions asked to those with a known collaboration between the library and writing center
There are a variety of known collaborative methods between libraries and writing centers, as mentioned by participants in the survey (see Table B). There are also multiple training methods used by participating libraries and writing centers (see Table C). When it comes to promoting their collaborative relationship, 41% of participants use e-mail or online methods, 27% use flyers or print methods, 22% participate in campus events or orientation meetings, 1% promote off-campus, 3% promote through faculty, 2% use word of mouth or referrals, and 3% do not currently promote their combined services.
35% of participants have strategic goals for their collaboration and 65% do not. These goals can be found in Appendix A. Of those who employ strategic goals, 35% assess their partnership using quantitative data, 30% assess using qualitative data from students and tutors, 3% assess by the fact that they still work together, and 15% do not assess their relationship. Another 18% interpreted the question differently and responded by saying that their relationship was "good," "excellent," or "positive." Participants shared their ideal version of collaborating, which can be found in Table D.
Participants also shared their strengths and weaknesses (see Table E and Table F).

C. Questions asked to those without an existing collaboration between the library and writing center
77% of participants without a current collaboration between the library and writing center believe that a relationship is possible between the two areas, while 23% do not believe that such a relationship is possible. Reasons cited for why this would not be a possibility are: it would cause a power struggle, the two locations are different branches or departments, lack of staff, issues with staff, space, they don't see a reason for the collaboration, or their current level of collaboration is enough.
There were many options selected and suggested for potential methods of collaboration by those participants who did not have a current relationship between the library and writing center (see Table G).

Discussion
After the survey period closed, it was significant to note that only around 34% of invited participants opened their e-mail invitation. Demographically, most respondents had multiple years of experience and came from diverse institutional settings, giving a more widespread view of interactions between libraries and writing centers. 94% of participants had a writing center on their campus, showing that writing centers are common on campuses across the country. Of that 94%, 65% have existing collaborative relationships between the library and writing center, though the collaborations range in scope. Most commonly, these relationships deal with instruction, whether it is bibliographic in nature, or in the classroom. Student orientations and appointments, as well as embedded tutors in the library, also saw larger percentages. Surprisingly, 14% of participants have embedded tutors in the library, but only 4% have librarians embedded in the writing center. Perhaps this relates to the fact that student, or peer, employees are less expensive to employ, as well as the busy schedules of librarian and writing center or tutoring staff expressed in the relationship weaknesses area of the survey. When those without existing partnerships were asked about ideal methods of collaborations, their responses were slightly closer in number than current existing collaborations -14% thought that embedding tutors in the library was ideal, while 10% thought that embedding librarians in the writing center was also preferable.
When asked about collaborative methods, respondents with existing collaborations were asked to choose ideal methods from the same list of options as those without existing collaborations. The two groups provided varying responses, as seen below in Table H: Both groups believe that library/bibliographic instruction and student orientations and trainings are important, as well as embedding tutors in the library and classroom presentations, though in different orders. The main difference is that those with existing collaborations work together more frequently on individual appointments, while those without partnerships envision working with faculty orientations and trainings more. When respondents with existing relationships were asked about their ideal collaborative methods, without options to select from, the answers were almost completely different from the options presented to them in Question 11a. The top five answers to this question are displayed in Table I (see Appendix A for full list of answers): Here, those with existing relationships envisioned a partnership with more communication, shared working space, and a relationship that not only focuses on student needs and success, but is also beneficial for all parties involved. Rather than thinking of specific styles and methods of working together, the responses to this question reached more to the heart of a relationship -what needs to exist for things to work and grow? These ideas aligned with the strengths and weaknesses mentioned by those with existing partnerships (see Table J). Likewise, increased communication would improve promotion of the combined services. Of those surveyed, 41% use online methods of promotion, 27% use print methods, and 22% use in-person methods. With increased use of technology, it appears that many groups are utilizing online and virtual methods rather than face-to-face communication. Future research efforts could explore whether online methods are the most beneficial way to collaborate, or if face-to-face or print methods might be better.
When it comes to training, 40% do not train the staff involved in the collaboration. This amount shows a deficit of training in potential partnerships that could be explored further. The next largest percentages were 25% of participants employing single day training sessions and 13% utilizing "as needed" trainings or occasional meetings. Not many participants mentioned continuing trainings throughout the year or maintaining regular communication. Combined with the 15% of participants who list a lack of planning or structure and the 15% of the group who cite communication as weaknesses, this apparent lack of continual training shows a need for more regular communication with structured training schedules for all involved in this type of collaborative relationship.
One way to jumpstart planning and communication between libraries and writing centers regarding their partnerships is to construct strategic goals for the relationships. Only 38 people answered that they had strategic goals and only 35 listed ways that they assess their collaboration. Creating goals, and a plan to implement and assess collaborations, can increase communication and strengthen the relationship. Participants assessed their relationships in quantitative assessment and qualitative assessment. A combination of both methods could lead to more successful development and growth of the collaborative relationship. With numbers to support different techniques and feedback from those participating, both libraries and writing centers can learn more about how their partnership works (or does not work).
Many respondents revealed their desire to share space with the other groups in their answers to multiple questions, whether it was simply being closer together or combining into a commons area. This expands on the idea of information literacy, offering a common place for students to learn how to find and utilize information for their class work. Various literature on information commons yields thought-provoking ideas about how these commons can and do work. which can all be utilized in an information commons (34). How to incorporate these different literacies is another story, though. Joan K. Lippincott states that "the concept of an information commons is slippery -it means different things in different institutions -and there is no commonly accepted definition among those who manage information commons or those who study them" (18). This makes sense as various comments from the survey expressed different potential outcomes for sharing space and resources.
The partnership between a library and writing center (or writing tutoring services) can be extremely beneficial in terms of information literacy outcomes for students. University outcomes can often be easily connected to American Library Association's (ALA) Information Literacy (IL) Competency Standards for Higher Education outcomes, or their new Framework for Information Literacy (IL) for Higher Education. For example, an outcome of "students will be able to communicate effectively" can be tied to the IL Competency Standard outcome of "The information literate student determines the nature and extent of the information needed" and the Framework for IL for Higher Education outcomes of "Information Creation as a Process," "Information has Value," and "Scholarship as Conversation." (See Appendix B for a full comparison of Wright State University outcomes with both the IL Competency Standards outcomes and Framework for IL for Higher Education.) Integrating the different dimensions of information literacy, along with the ALA Standards and Framework, into university or college outcomes increase student success by placing an emphasis on students becoming more informed citizens and developing skills regarding finding, evaluating, and using information in their own work. Partnerships that work together to provide students with the knowledge and skills to succeed in both class and the outside world support higher education goals and increase efficiency by working together.

Conclusions
The variety of answers shared within this survey show that though most campuses have writing tutoring services, the amount of collaboration with the campus library varies among institutions. While the majority of respondents indicated that there was a collaboration between the library and writing center (or writing tutoring services group), the magnitude of this relationship is not consistent across the country. Many participants expressed that communication and planning are areas that need improvement in their relationship. Combined with very few strategic goals and assessment strategies shared, more detailed planning, training, and assessing could be explored with regards to partnerships between libraries and writing centers. As many people appear interested in creating an information commons, more research into ways to successfully navigate a partnership and retain individual identities while sharing a name and space might also be a useful area to develop. Along with research on shared spaces, more research on collaborative endeavors across campus could also be undertaken. When both groups come together in classrooms, at events, and other locations that are outside of their comfort zone, it would be beneficial to have some best practices and shared ideas for making the best use of time, space, and staff outside of their main location. Overall, many people are interested in undertaking a collaborative relationship to assist with student success and growth -it's just a matter of figuring out best practices moving forward.

____________________________________________________________________________________ 7 Acknowledgments
A huge THANK YOU to my partner-in-crime, Jill Tussing for always being a rock in this partnership and sharing insights and advice as we go along.
Another large amount of thanks to Bette Sydelko and Mandy Shannon for helping me navigate the process of running a survey and navigating the Institutional Review Board process.

Student success
To leverage collaborative relationships to best serve the students' needs and make it as easy to receive these services as possible.
To give at least one information literacy training session to tutors Provide more coverage for our satellite students We are the same department.
To break down silos between research and writing components of producing college level papers.
To make students more aware of the services our library can provide in spite of reduced physical space and print holdings I'd like the WC to regain its space in the library.
Mainly to continue to have a collaborative environment.
Our library's most recent strategic plan (from 3 years ago) included an objective to explore such collaborations and implement them at an initial stage. We have plans to expand this collaboration starting in the fall, with peer research advisors being incorporated into the student writing tutor group.
Increasing the use of the library and tutoring services Maximize partnerships that extend access to information , cultivate support for students, services and library collections and strengthen the community Tension over territory and physical space To provide comprehensive student support for research and writing; to make sure our services are complimentary and enhance student learning Support appropriate referral between offices.
To meet students where they are in a space that is designed for their interest and customization, as well as demonstrating versatility in accommodating which point of the writing/working process they are in. Also, promote collaboration between crucial campus units.
We want to promote student use of the library and writing assistance sources on campus and we want students to learn ways to make more informed writing and research choices.
Student success and to increase the number of tutorials done for students, faculty, staff and community My goal is to increase collaboration, though because I am in my first year on the job it has not been my primary focus yet. As I get more resources developed for the Writing Center, I will increase my focus on collaborating with the library through advertisements, events, etc.
The library encourages students to use the writing center; and the writing center promotes the library.
To make them seamlessly integrated. Research and writing are natural combinations. Research is part of writing, and librarians have skills beyond research that they can home, such as inquiry and invention.
Encourage students to use the consulting strength of both units but allow for some overlap We are in the process of transitioning from a library to a Student Success Center with a librarian/program director to work with faculty, staff, and students in the library, tutoring, and computer resource areas; and possibly some collaboration with counseling services.
I would like to move to a commons approach where tutors and librarians exist side-by-side in the same space. Seven people answered this question with answers including "Good," "Excellent," "Very good," and "It's a positive relationship." These answers are logged separately from the data collection-related answers. 1. The information literate student determines the nature and extent of the information needed.
a) The information literate student defines and articulates the need for information.

Information Creation as a Process
Information in any format is produced to convey a message and is shared via a selected delivery method. The iterative processes of researching, creating, revising, and disseminating information vary, and the resulting product reflects these differences.

Information has Value
Information possesses several dimensions of value, including as a commodity, as a means of education, as a means to influence, and as a means of negotiating and understanding the world. Legal and socioeconomic interests influence information production and dissemination.

Scholarship as Conversation
Communities of scholars, researchers, or professionals engage in sustained discourse with new insights and discoveries occurring over time as a result of varied perspectives and interpretations.
3. Wright State graduates will be able to evaluate arguments and evidence critically.
3. The information literate student evaluates information and its sources critically and incorporates selected information into his or her knowledge base and value system.

Authority is Constructed and Contextual
Information resources reflect their creators' expertise and credibility, and are evaluated based on the information need and the context in which the information will be used. Authority is constructed in that various communities may recognize different types of authority. It is contextual in that the information need may help to determine the level of authority required.

Research as Inquiry
Research is iterative and depends upon asking increasingly complex or new questions whose answers in turn develop additional questions or lines of inquiry in any field.

Searching as Strategic Exploration
Searching for information is often nonlinear and iterative, requiring the evaluation of a range of information sources and the mental flexibility to pursue alternate avenues as new understanding develops.
24 10 Appendix C: List of Tables   Table A: Institutional Size and Setting Groups, page 3   Table B: Known Collaborative Methods, page 4